The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
tellforwhythat
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
tellforwhythat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 86198
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

ViceRegent

Con

Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheist know truth from fiction?
tellforwhythat

Pro

Truth is something which was expressed after having been discovered , fiction is something that is discovered after it has been expressed.

God is something which has never been discovered until people are told about him, thus he/she/it doesn't represent a truth. If later on he/she/it is discovered that would make discussions of the observation truth but god itself would still be fiction to those whom hadn't themselves discovered it.

I think the most important aspect of truth is knowing when not to dish it out, the most important aspect of fiction is knowing how to dish it out to do so more often.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Dude, I did not ask you for your defintions or your musings about reality. I asked by what rational standard do you know something is true and something is false.

My gosh, these atheists are dumb as as box of rocks.
tellforwhythat

Pro

Truth is something which was expressed after having been discovered , fiction is something that is discovered after it has been expressed.

Which part of this are you struggling to keep up with? :)
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Atheists are madly in love with being obtuse. Still no answer. Oh well, I will wait for this debate to end and start a new one with someone who can comprehend English.
tellforwhythat

Pro

Con has thus far failed to rebut my points.

Win by concession.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

My gosh, the obtuse one cannot deal with the OP and claims victory? Yep, atheists are deluded AND narcissistic.
tellforwhythat

Pro

tellforwhythat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tellforwhythat

Pro

tellforwhythat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
To all my friends and foes I am truly thank full to you for making me think and learn. Keep an open mind and stay self aware. Let us all deciding to be better. Bye for now......
http://decidingtobebetter.com...
Posted by squonk 1 year ago
squonk
How DO atheists really know the difference between reality and fantasy? We don't! Now I realize what an empty-headed moron I've been all these years. Atheism is ridiculous. It is FAR MORE RATIONAL to believe that God came to earth in human form to die a horrible death, thereby creating a loophole in His own law, which says that we deserve to burn in hell for eternity because our ancestors ate from the wrong fruit tree. Hallelujah! I've seen the light of reason. Thank you ViceRegent.
Posted by squonk 1 year ago
squonk
He has no argument to make. Look at the things he says about atheists: irrational, obstinate, obtuse, arrogant, unreasonable, cowardly, etc. In psychology, this is what is known as "projection."
Posted by mememachine 1 year ago
mememachine
vice regent getting destroyed but the only argument he can come back to is that athiests are sick in the head, you've participated in 33 debates, none of which you have won. Don't you think it's a bit too much of a coincidence? Perhaps your views on the world are as skewed as your view on athiests.

I sit on the fence during many debates, particularly because I want to see what sort of points and arguments can be made, you, ViceRegent have failed to provide any sort whatsoever.

Call me a sick minded athiest, call me whatever you want. I sure as hell wont lose any sleep over it.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
And MissArrogant continues to run. She will no longer waste my time.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
He does not care to win the debate, he only wants to backbite, bad-mouth bash belittle berate blow off calumniate cap castigate cuss out cut down cut to the quick decry defame derogate discount do a number on dump on give a black eye hurl brickbat insult knock minimize nag offend oppress persecute pick on put down rag on reproach revile ride rip up run down scold signify slam slap sling mud smear sound swear at tear apart trash upbraid vilify vituperate zing
Posted by squonk 1 year ago
squonk
Of course he hasn't made any valid arguments.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 1 year ago
WhineyMagiciann5
I want to pint our here that vice has not made a single valid argument. How do christians know truth from fiction? If your so surperior then tou should answer this no problem.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
MissArrogant must have missed my Qs. I will repeat them for her:

Missarrogant, how do you know your senses are valid?

How do you know that is the only way to gain information about the world? Ironically, this is a self-defeating claim, for it is not a claim provided to you by your senses.

And, finally, how do you know you reason is valid?

Stop begging, and answer, the question.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
In everyday experience we used the absence of evidence and the existence of conflicting evidence to detect lies. The very thing faith asks be disregarded. When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.
There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think. Without any criteria for accepting a statement as true, every random idea, whether true or false, would be just as likely to be accepted. Contradictions would exist. No higher level abstractions could be made. Faith nullifies the mind. To the degree ideas are taken on faith, the process of thinking is subverted.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
FaustianJustice
ViceRegenttellforwhythatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct due to forfeitures, however Pro did answer the question succinctly in that truth is found from discovery. With the frame of theism/atheism as Con suggests, the challenge was answered incredibly well. It would then rely to Con to rebut but demonstrating that God is a discovery, not revelation. Con missed the boat.